For permission to cite from the archival cadasters, we thank the staff of Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv drevnikh aktov. We also wish to thank the International Research and Exchanges Board, the American Council of Learned Societies, and the Russian Academy of Sciences, which sponsored the research and exchange of scholars under whose auspices our research was conducted.

1. “Marfa-Posadnitsa, ili pokorenie Novagoroda,” Vestnik Evropy, 1803, nos. 1-3, cited in Karamzin, N. M., hbrannyesochinmiia v dvukh tomakh (Moscow-Leningrad, 1964), 1:680-81Google Scholar. Emphasis in original.

2. Pavel 1. Sumarokov's “Marfa Posadnitsa, ili Pokorenie Novagoroda” was published in 1807. Fedor F. Ivanov's “Marfa-posadnitsa, ili pokorenie Novgoroda: Tragediia v stikhakh, s khorami, v piati deistviiakh,” a reworking of Karamzin's tale, was published in Moscow in 1809 and reprinted in the anthology edited by V. A. Bochkarev, Stikhotvornaia tragediia kontsa XVllI-nachala XIX v., Biblioteka poeta, bol'shaia seriia (Moscow-Leningrad, 1964), 369-448. Mikhail P. Pogodin's “Marfa Posadnitsa Novgorodskaia: Tragediia v piati deistviiakh v stikhakh,” published in Moscow in 1830, takes Karamzin's historical account as its point of departure. It was reprinted, with censored passages restored, in Pogodin's, Povesli, Drama, ed. Virolainen, M. N. (Moscow, 1984), 289–403 Google Scholar.

3. “Nabroski dumy ‘Marfa Posadnitsa,'” written in 1822 or 1823, could not be published until 1871. It is here cited from Ryleev, K. F., Polnoe sobranie stikholvorenii, ed. Arkhipova, A. V. et al., Biblioteka poeta, Bol'shaia seriia (Leningrad, 1971), 331-34.Google Scholar

4. The poem “Marfa Posadnitsa,” written in 1914 and forbidden to be published until after the February revolution, is cited from Esenin, S. A., Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, ed. Prokushev, Iu. L., 5 vols. (Moscow, 1995-98), 2:7–11 Google Scholar. Additional literary reminiscences are discussed by Bernadskii, Viktor N., Novgorod i Novgorodskaia zemlia v XVveke (Moscow-Leningrad, 1961), 309-13.Google Scholar

5. Among the earliest historical studies to adopt these views were Karamzin, N. K., Istoriia gosudarstva rossiiskogo, 5th ed., 12 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1842-1844; reprint, Moscow, 1988), vol. 6, chap. 1, cols. 17-30Google Scholar; and Solov'ev, Sergei M., htoriia Rossii s drevneishikh vremen, 29 vols, in 15 books (1851-79; reprint, Moscow, 1959-66), vols. 5 -6 (bk. 3), pp. 11- 22Google Scholar. For more recent treatments, see, for example, Alef, Gustave, ‘The Origins of Muscovite Autocracy: The Age of Ivan III,” Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte 39 (1986): 108, 232Google Scholar; and Fennell, John L. I., Ivan the Great of Moscow (London, 1961), 38–40 Google Scholar.

6. See, for example, Pushkareva, Natal'ia L., Zhenshchiny drevnei Rusi (Moscow, 1989), 52–55 Google Scholar; Atkinson, Dorothy, “Society and the Sexes in the Russian Past,” in Atkinson, Dorothy, Dallin, Alexander, and Lapidus, Gail Warshofsky, eds., Women in Russia (Stanford, 1977), 22.Google Scholar

7. See the Sophia First Chronicle (hereafter Sof. I) in Polnoe sobranie. russkikh letopisei (hereafter PSRL), vol. 6, Sofiiskie letopisi (St. Petersburg, 1853), 1-15. See also PSRL, vol. 39, Sofiiskaia pervaia letopis’ po spisku I. N. Tsarskogo (Moscow, 1994), 149-58.

8. PSRL, vol. 4, Novgorodskaia chetvertaia letopis’ (hereafter NIV), 2d ed., pt. 2, fasc. 2 (Leningrad, 1925), 498-512. A slightly edited version is included in the L'vov Chronicle; PSRL, vol. 20, L'vovskaia letopis', pt. 1 (St. Petersburg, 1910), 283-96 (hereafter L'vov), but the text is not in the Stroevcopy of NIV (PSRL 4, lsted.,St. Petersburg, 1848), the last extant independent Novgorodian chronicle records; lakov S. Lur'e, “K istorii prisoedineniia Novgoroda,” Issledovaniepo sotsial'no-politicheskoi istorii Rossii (Leningrad, 1971), 89. Nor is the “Slovesa izbranna” included in the Sophia Second Chronicle usually grouped with L'vov as part of the compilation of 1518; Lur'e makes this erroneous claim in his Dve istorii RusiXVveka (St. Petersburg, 1994), 19.

9. PSRL, vol. 21, Kniga stepennaia tsarskogo rodosloviia, pt. 2 (St. Petersburg, 1913), 530-42.

10. “Citations chosen from sacred writings; on the truth and wise humility of the deeds performed by the champion of the faith, the pious grand prince Ivan Vasil'evich of all Rus', may he be praised for his pious faith; additionally, on the pride of the arrogant men of Novgorod; the Lord God humbled them and delivered them into [Ivan's] hands, but he piously had mercy on them for the Lord's sake and brought peace to their land.“

11. L. V. Cherepnin compares the “Slovesa izbranna” to documents from a grandprincely archive contained in the codex Rossiiskaia natsional'naia biblioteka (hereafter RNB), O.IV. no. 14; see Cherepnin, , Russkiefeodal'nye arkhivy XTV-XVvekov, pt. 1 (Moscow- Leningrad, 1948), 334-36, 351Google Scholar; see also Bernadskii, Novgorod, 273.

12. Akty istoricheskie, sobrannye i izdannye Arkheograftcheskoiu kommissieiu, vol. 1, 1334- 1598 (St. Petersburg, 1841), no. 280, pp. 512-14, and no. 281, pp. 517-18 (both addressed to the Novgorodian clergy), no. 282, pp. 518-19 (addressed to Ivan III); Nasonov, Arsenii N., Istoriia russkogo letopisaniia Xl-nachalo XVIHveka (Moscow, 1969), 253-55.Google Scholar

13. Forty lines (7 percent of the total 572) are direct quotations, and seventy-eight lines (14 percent of the total) paraphrase Metropolitan Filipp's letters.

14. Sof. I (PSKL 6), 4; Akty istoricheskie, vol. 1, no. 280, pp. 512-14; no. 281, pp. 516-17.

15. Sof. I (PSRL 6), 7-8. Akty istoricheskie, vol. 1, no. 281, pp. 516-17. The metropolitan's third missive to Ivan III (June 1471), informing the grand prince that he has instructed the Novgorodians to confess their crimes and urging Ivan to be merciful (no. 282, pp. 518-19), is paraphrased, and three scriptural passages on the wisdom of being merciful (Luke 6:36, Matt. 6:14, Matt. 5:7) are reproduced by the author of the “Slovesa izbranna,“ Sof. I (PSRL 6), 13.

16. Grigorii was appointed by Pope Pius II in 1458 as “Metropolitan of Kiev, Lithuania, and Lower Russia” (in an effort to revitalize the 1439 union between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches) and ordained in the Greek rite by the Patriarch of Constantinople in exile, Gregory Mammas; c. 1470 he was also recognized as the legitimate metropolitan of Kiev by Patriarch Dionysius, an opponent of the Uniate Church; Oscar Ha\ecki, From Florence to Brest (1439-1596), 2d ed. (Hamden, Conn., 1968), 85-97; Goliibinskii, Evgenii E., Isloriia russkoi Iserkvi: Period vtoroi, moskovskii, vol. 2, Ot nashestviia Mongolov do mitropolita Makariia vkliuchitel'no (Moscow, 1900), pt. 1, pp. 533-34Google Scholar. On the formation of the two metropolitan sees, see Makarii (Bulgakov), Istoriia russkoi tserkvi, 12 vols. (1857-1883; reprint in 9 books with updated commentary and bibliography, Moscow, 1984-1997), bk. 3, vol. 4, pp. 345-60, 554 (commentary by Anatolii Turilov); bk. 4, pt. 1, vols. 7-8, pp. 15-49,549-52 (commentary by Makarii Veretennikov); Cherniavsky, Michael, “The Reception of the Council of Florence in Moscow,” Church History 24 (1955): 347-57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fennell, John, A History of the. Russian Church to 1448 (London, 1995), 170-88.Google Scholar

17. Akty istoricheskie, vol. 1, no. 281, pp. 516-17. Metropolitan Filipp's letter borrows extensively, in turn, from Psalm 90 (“For He shall deliver thee from the snare of the hunters and from every troubling word“) and the liturgical hymn “Edinorodnyi syne.” The theological implications of applying the epithet “only-begotten” (edinorodnyi) to the human soul, rather than to Christ, deserve further discussion.

18. Among the chronicles believed to preserve this compilation, which is traditionally dated in the early 1470s, see PSRL, vol. 26, Vologodsko-Permskaia letopis’ (Moscow-Leningrad, 1959), 231 (hereafter VPL) and PSRL, vol. 27, Nikanorovskaia letopis’ (Moscow-Leningrad, 1962), 129 (hereafter Nikanor.). See also the compilation, now dated 1492-93, in PSRL, vol. 25, Moskovskii letopisnyi svod kontsa XVveka (Moscow-Leningrad, 1949), 284 (hereafter Mosk.); on the revised dating see la. S. Lur'e, “Iz istorii russkogo letopisaniia kontsa XV veka,” Trudy otdela drevnerusskoi literatury 11(1955): 167; Andreas Ebbinghaus, Die altrussischenMarienikonen- Legenden, Slavistische Veroffentlichungen 70 (Berlin, 1990), 148-49n61.

19. VPL(PSRL26),232;Nikanor. (PSRL27), 130; PSRL, vol. 18, Simeonovskaia letopis' (St. Petersburg, 1918), 226 (hereafter Sim.); Mosk. (PSRL 25), 285. In the grand-princely chronicle, investiture by the “Latin” metropolitan is represented as a future threat without precedent in the past.

20. We are grateful to Pierre Gonneau for pointing out that the representation of the archbishop as “the people's choice” is a rhetorical formulation frequently encountered in the Novgorod I Chronicle. The chronicler's warnings to the pro-Lithuanian faction parallel the warnings expressed in the metropolitan's directives to the Novgorodians.

21. In addition to the comparison of the grand prince's opponents to demons, the chronicle compares the Novgorodian rebels with the rebels in Jerusalem who so angered God that he let them be defeated by Titus's army (67 A.D.).

22. Kostomarov, N., Severnorusskie narodopravstva po vremena udel'no-vechevogo uklada (St. Petersburg, 1863), 1:147-49, 158-81Google Scholar; Lur'e, Dve istorii, 123-26, 129-30.

23. Bazilevich, K. V., Vneshniaiapolitika russkogo Isentralizovannogogosudarstva (Moscow, 1952), 91.Google Scholar

24. Mikhail arrived in Novgorod only three days after Archbishop Iona died and a week before Feofil was elected to replace him. His departure for Novgorod must, therefore, have occurred before Iona died and before the selection of his replacement had become an issue; Nasonov, A. N., ed., Pskovskie letopisi, 2 vols. (Moscow, 1941-1955), 2:172.Google Scholar

25. Lur'e, Dveistorii, 125, 131, 139-40; Bazilevich, Vneshniaia politika russkogo tsentralizovannogogosudarstva, 91-92, 93-96; Bernadskii, Novgorod, 212-14, 270-73; Vernadsky, George, A History of Russia, vol. 4, Russia at theDaiun of the Modern Age (New Haven, 1959), 46–47 Google Scholar; Fennell, Ivan the Great, 38-39; Halecki, From Florence to Brest, 96, 97, 101; and Dvornichenko, A. Iu., Russkie zemli velikogo kniazhestva litovskogo (St. Petersburg, 1993), 211.Google Scholar

26. Valk, S. N., ed., Gramoty velikogo Novgoroda i Pskova (Moscow-Leningrad, 1949), no. 77, p. 132 (hereafter GVNP)Google Scholar; Golubinskii, Istoriia russkoi tserkvi, vol. 2, pt. 1, p. 538.

27. PSRL 4, 1st ed., 127, 129. The Moscow grand-princely chronicles likewise report that the election proceeded as usual; VPL (PSRL 26), 230; Nikanor. (PSRL 27), 129; Sim. (PSRL 18), 225; Mosk. (PSRL 25), 284.

28. The Pskov Third Chronicle was compiled in 1567 under the supervision of Kornilii, a hegumen of the Pskov Caves Monastery, which offered shelter to Kurbskii and other boyars who opposed the policies of Ivan IV. Kornilii was executed at Ivan's order; Nasonov, Pskovskie letopisi, 2:6-7.

29. Nasonov, Pskovskie letopisi, 2:172-73; A. Nikitskii, Ocherk vnutrennei istorii tserkvi v velikom Novgorode (St. Petersburg, 1879), 122; Lur'e, Dve istorii, 131-32. Historians value the Pskov Third Chronicle as a source that usually does not follow the Muscovite ideological line but provides local information. Since it was copied so long after the episcopal election, however, its testimony cannot be accepted with certainty in this case.

30. One of Marfa's sons, Fedor, is identified as the nephew (sestrichich) of Ivan Ivanovich Loshinskii; see the Sophia Second Chronicle (hereafter Sof. II), PSRL 6, 200.

31. Ianin, V. L., Novgorodskieposadniki (Moscow, 1962), 219, 291-92, 294Google Scholar; Ianin, , Novgorodskaia feodal'naia votchina (Istoriko-genealogicheskoe issledovanie) (Moscow, 1981), 66–68, 108-10.Google Scholar

32. Loshinskii may have been a posadnik. For differing views, see Bernadskii, Novgorod, 155; Ianin, Novgorodskie posadniki, 299; Ianin, Novgorodskaia feodal'naia votchina, 110. For Loshinskii's landholdings, see Ianin's Novgorodskie akty XII-XVvv. (Moscow, 1991), 73; Veselovskii, Stepan B., Feodal'noe zemlevladenie v severo-vostochnoi Rusi (Moscow-Leningrad, 1947), 1:284 Google Scholar; Shapiro, A. L., ed., Agrarnaia istoriia severo-zapada Rossii (Leningrad, 1971), 228 Google Scholar; Sof. II (PSRL 6), 212.

33. N. L. Pushkareva remarks that Marfa was Boretskii's second wife; Zhenshchiny drevnei Rusi, 52. We are grateful to Daniel Kaiser for sharing his views on this point.

34. Nasonov, A. N., ed., Novgorodskaiapervaia letopis’ starshego i mladshego izvodov (Moscow-Leningrad, 1950), 407 (hereafter NPL)Google Scholar; Ianin, Novgorodskaia feodal'naia votchina, 10, 42-43, 51; Ianin, Novgorodskie akty, 60; Bernadskii, Novgorod, 220.

35. On Porkhov, see the Muscovite grand-princely compilation of 1492-93 in Mosk. (PSRL 25), 248; Sim. (PSRL 18), 169-70; and PSRL, vol. 8, Prodolzhenie letopisi po Voskresenskomu spisku (St. Petersburg, 1859), 94 (hereafter Vos.). According to a treaty concluded in 1439 with German merchants, he was then Novgorod's posadnik; GVNP, no. 68, p. 113. Ianin dates Isaak's tenure in office from August 1438 to February 1439. See his Novgorodskie akty, 54; Novgorodskaia feodal'naia votchina, 49, and Novgorodskie posadniki, 276.

36. V. L. Ianin estimated that Boretskii died in that decade. His arguments are presented in “Kkhronologii novgorodskikh aklov\zs\\naTemnogo,” Arkheograficheskii ezhegodnik za 1979 god (Moscow, 1981), 45; Novgorodskaia feodal'naia votchina, 49-50; and in the commentary to Novgorodskie akty, 183 (no. 104).

37. GVNP, no. 77, p. 130; Sof. I (PSRL 6), 17; PSRL, vol. 12, VIII. Lelopisnyi sbornik, imenuemyiPatriarsheiu HiNikonovskoiu letopis'iu (St. Petersburg, 1901), 193 (hereafter Nik.); Ianin, Novgorodskaia feodal'naia votchina, 53-54.

38. Ianin, Novgorodskie posadniki, 300. But see also Ianin, Novgorodskaia feodal'naia votchina, 53, and Ianin, Novgorodskie akty, 73.

39. Mar'ia, the wife of Fedor Isakov, is identified in the Novgorodian land cadasters; Novgorodskie pistsovye knigi (St. Petersburg, 1859-1910; reprint vols. 1-3, The Hague, 1969), vol. 1, col. 635 (hereafter NPK). Her family of origin is not specified.

40. NIV (PSRL 4, 2d ed., pt. 1, fasc. 2), 450; Ianin, Novgorodskie akty, 69; Ianin, Novgorodskie posadniki, 314, 347; Ianin, Novgorodskaiafeodal'naia votchina, 47, 49. On urban dwellings of Novgorodian boyars, see Ianin, Novgorodskaia feodal'naia votchina, 25-34. On the tendency for Novgorodian boyars not to live on their estates located far from the city, see I. L. Perel'man, “NovgorodskaiaderevniavXV-XVI w.,” Istoricheskiezapiski26 (1948): 138, 142.

41. NPK, vol. 6, col. 24; Pistsovye knigi Obonezhskoi piatiny 1496 i 1563 gg. (Leningrad, 1930), 127 (hereafter PROP); Bernadskii, Novgorod, 328; M. V Vitov, Istoriko-geograficheskie ocherki Zaonezh'ia XVI-XVII vv. (Moscow, 1962), 218.

42. Information on Marfa's landed property is in the Novgorodian cadasters (pistsovye knigi). The first set of cadasters, compiled at the turn of the sixteenth century, contains records of estates confiscated from the Novgorodian landowners, including the identities of their former owners and their sizes. But the complete set of cadasters has not survived. Later sixteenth-century compilations contain references to the fifteenth-century boyar owners and thus supplement the information contained in the first set. They do not, however, provide data on the sizes of the holdings during the pre-Muscovite era. The Novgorodian cadasters reflect the administrative structure of the Novgorodian lands, which were divided into five major regions or piatinas surrounding the city of Novgorod. Vodskaia and Obonezhskaia were located to the northwest and northeast of the city, Bezhetskaia and Derevskaia to the east and southeast, and Shelonskaia to the southwest. The piatinas were subdivided. The smallest administrative unit was the pogosl; because each was centered around a village with a church, pogosts may also be likened to parishes.

43. The term obzha refers to a unit ofland area used as a basis for assessing taxes and other fees. Generally considered to have been the amount ofland one man with one horse could plow, the actual amount of land in an obzha varied; Shapiro, ed., Agrarnaia istoriia, 20-29. For the low figures, see S. A. Tarakanova-Belkina, Boiarskoe i monastyrskoe zemlevladenie v novgorodskikh piatinakh v domoskovskoe -uremia (Moscow, 1939), 93. For the high figures, see Pushkareva, Zhenshchiny drevnei Rusi, 135-36, 262-63. L. V. Danilova offered: 714 villages, 1,458 households, 1,865 men, 1,190.33 obzhas; see Ocherkipo islorii zemlevladeniia i khoziaistva v Novgorodskoi zemle v XTV-XVw. (Moscow, 1955), 145-46. A. M. Gnevushev counted 799 obzhas confiscated from Marfa Boretskaia; Sel'skoe naselenieNovgorodskoi oblasti popislsovym knigam 1495-1505 (Kiev, 1910-1912), appendix 3, p. 310. His figures exclude her holdings in the Obonezhskaia piatina and reflect the sizes of the estates at the time the cadasters were compiled, that is, some years after they had been confiscated.

44. PROP, 9, 29-35; Perel'man, “Novgorodskaia derevnia v XV-XVI w.,” 134.

45. Bernadskii, Novgorod, 56; Shapiro similarly remarked that the Boretskii family was the largest landowner in Zaonezh'e; see Shapiro, ed., Agrarnaia istoriia, 252; see also Vitov, Istoriko-geograficheskieocherki, 188-89, 192-95, 200-207, 220-21; PROP, 133, 155-59, 162, 177, 184-86, 207-18, 221-36; Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv drevnikh aktov (hereafter RGADA), f. 1209, op. 1, no. 963, ch. 1, fols. 1026, 1152ob.

46. The region is not included in the surviving portions of the 1496 cadaster, but the 1563 cadaster contains the 1496 records of the obrok (rent) paid for salt boiling; PROP, 159.

47. The peasants of Vytegorskii pogost, where Marfa owned land, operated a portage used in the transport of salt. PROP, 211; Bernadskii, Novgorod, 73-74.

48. Flax and linen were produced in Bezhetskaia and Derevskaia piatinas; Shapiro, ed., Agrarnaia istoriia, 232; NPR, vol. 6, cols. 23-34; Danilova, Ocherkipo islorii zemlevladeniia i khoziaistva, 38; Petrova, R. G., “Otryvok iz pistsovoi knigi kontsa XV v.,” Islochnikovedenie otechestvennoi islorii: Sbornik statei, 1979 (Moscow, 1980), 238-75Google Scholar.

49. This is the number of tiaglye liudi recorded after the lands were confiscated from Marfa; NPR, vol. 1, col. 640; Danilova, Ocherkipo islorii zemlevladeniia i khoziaistva, 39. Located near the Novgorod-Lithuanian border, Berzovets was a grand-princely volost’ before the middle of the century; Lithuania, however, received the revenues derived from it. Marfa evidently acquired the area sometime during the third quarter of the century. See GVNP, no. 70, p. 116; Ianin, Novgorodskie akty, 177-78 (no. 99); Shapiro, ed., Agrarnaia istoriia, 85 and 77 (on location). References to selling cattle and horses and to fishing appear in conjunction with this district; NPK, vol. 1, col. 652. In the south, Marfa owned properties in proximity to other Novgorodian boyars, identified as pro-Lithuanian. Ivan Kuz'min Savelkov and Grigorii Arzubev, who were sent into exile with her, owned estates in the same Shelonskaia pogosts she did. Bogdan Esipov and Ol'ferii, the son of Ivan Ofonas'ev, deported from Novgorod with Marfa's son Fedor, had also owned property in the same pogosts; NPK, vol. 2, cols. 590-91, 621-22; NPK, vol. 4, cols. 170, 172-75, 465, 513, 559, 563; RGADA, f. 1209, op. 3, no. 17144, fols. 63, 225ob., 230.

50. The only other sources that indicate she participated at all in the political events are the aforecited chronicles, compiled at the grand prince's court in the 1470s, which report that Isaak Boretskii's children “with their mother Marfa” fomented anti-Muscovite, pro-Lithuanian demonstrations in Novgorod.

51. Shurygina, A. P., “Novgorodskaia boiarskaia kolonizatsiia,” Uchenye zapiski Leningradskogogosudarstvennogopedagogicheskogo instituta im. A. I. Gertsena 78 (1948): 51–52 Google Scholar; and Pushkareva, Zhmshchiny drevnei Rusi, 53-54.

52. Many of the women who owned land in Novgorod before it was annexed to Muscovy are included in a list compiled by A. M. Gnevushev; Sel'skoe naselenie, appendix 3, pp. 300-45. Pushkareva, nevertheless, considers Marfa, by virtue of the vast quantity of her lands, to have been unique; Zhenshchiny drevnei Rusi, 53. Nastas'ia Grigor'eva and Ofim'ia Goroshkova were related through their husbands, who were distant cousins; Ianin, Novgorodskaia feodal'naia votchina, 127-28. The two women are mentioned in the chronicles in conjunction with Ivan Ill's visit to Novgorod in 1475- 76. Their sons greeted the grand prince as he approached the city. Shortly afterward, Ofim'ia's son and her slaves were accused of participating in the urban discord that led to the arrest and exile of Marfa's son Fedor and brother Ivan Loshinskii. Nastas'ia, nevertheless, gave a banquet for the grand prince. The report of her arrest in 1484 calls her the “glorious and rich Nastas'ia“; Sof. II (PSRL 6), 201, 203, 204, 236.

53. NPL, 396; Ianin, Novgorodskaia feodal'naia votchina, 51.

54. Mosk. (PSRL 25), 248; Sim. (PSRL 18), 169-70; Vos. (PSRL 8), 94; Nik. (PSRL 12), 8; George Vernadsky, A History of Russia, vol. 3, The Mongols and Russia (New Haven, 1953), 295.

55. According to this report, Boretskii bribed Dmitrii's cook to poison his master. PSRL, vol. 23,Ermolinskaialetopis’ (St. Petersburg, 1910), 155 (hereafter Erm.); la. S. Lur'e, Dveistorii, 140.

56. Nasonov argues that this entry was probably a reader's marginal gloss, mistakenly incorporated in the Ermolin Chronicle manuscript by a later copyist; see Isloriia nisskogo letopisaniia, 334-35.

57. See VPL (PSRL 26), 231; Nikanor. (PSRL 27), 129; and Mosk. (PSRL 25), 285- 86; Lur'e, Dve istorii, 16-17, 128-29; Bernadskii, Novgorod, 274.

58. GVNP, no. 77, p. 130. Ianin dates the treaty between March and May 1471; Novgorodskie akty, 187-89 (no. 110), 119 (no. 56), 129. On dating, see also Khoroshkevich, A. L., “Russkie gramoty 60—70-kh godov XV v. iz byvshego Rizhskogo gorodskogo arkhiva,“ Arkheograficheskii ezhegodnik za 1965 (Moscow, 1966), 326 Google Scholar; Zimin, A. A., “O khronologii dogovornykh gramot velikogo Novgoroda s kniaz'iami XIII-XV w.,” Problemy istochnikovedeniia 5 (1956): 324, 327Google Scholar; Lur'e, Dve istorii, 125; Ianin, Novgorodskie posadniki, 294; Bazilevich, Vneshniaia politika nisskogo tsentralizovannogo gosudarstva, 92-96. Zimin and Lur'e present arguments for considering the document a draft, not a final, formally adopted version of a treaty. See Zimin, “O khronologii,” 324-27; Zimin, Pamialniki nisskogo prava (Moscow, 1953), 2:245-46; Lur'e, Dve istorii, 140-41. For the opposite view, see Bernadskii, Novgorod, 272, and Cherepnin, Russkiefeodal'nye arkhivy, pt. 1, 363-69.

59. Sof. II (PSRL 6), 193; the Dubrovskii copy of NIV (PSRL 4, 2d ed., fasc. 2), 510; Mosk. (PSRL 25), 289-90, and Vos. (PSRL 8), 166; Ianin, Novgorodskaia feodal'naia volchina, 53.

60. Akty istoricheskie, vol. 1, no. 279, p. 511. Entries in both grand-princely and metropolitan compilations suggest that Feofil had no quarrel with the Boretskii family interests, since he negotiated with the grand prince for the release of Marfa's son, brother, and associates. A similar conclusion is evident in remarks made by Vladimir Vodov in another context; see “Un pamphlet anti-Latin á Novgorod au XVe siècle?” Revue des ùtudes slaves 69, no. 2 (1998): 306.

61. Loshinskii and Fedor met the grand prince together on 7 November, and Fedor greeted him again on 15 November according to Sof. II (PSRL 6), 200; Bernadskii, Novgorod, 296; Ianin, Novgorodskaia feodal'naia volchina, 53.

62. Sof. I (PSRL 6), 18, and Sof. II (PSRL 6), 203-4; NIV (PSRL 4, 2d ed., pt. 1, fasc. 2), 449; Mosk. (PSRL 25), 306, 308; Sim. (PSRL 18), 252; Bernadskii, Novgorod, 296, 313; lanin, Novgorodskaia feodal'naia votchina, 53; Ianin, Novgorodskie akty, 73.

63. Sof. II (PSRL 6), 203-4; NIV (PSRL 4, 2d ed., pt. 1, fasc. 2), 449; Ianin, Novgorodskie posadniki, 313-14, 347. Although Ivan Ofonas'ev's father had been named, along with Dmitrii Isakov, in the 1471 draft treaty with Lithuania, the bond linking the members of this group may have been related to their landholdings and common interests in the Vaga and Dvina regions rather than to their attitudes toward Lithuania; GVNP, no. 77, p. 130; Akty, sobrannye v bibliotekakh i arkhivakh Rossiiskoi imperii Arkheograficheskoiu ekspedilseiu pri imp. Akademii nauk, 4 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1836-1858), vol. 1, no. 94, pp. 73-75; Cherepnin, Russkie feodal'nye arkhivy, pt. 1, 347; Bernadskii, Novgorod, 58, 269. For other views on the political motive for the arrest of Fedor Isakov and Ivan Loshinskii, see Bernadskii, Novgorod, 296, and Ianin, Novgorodskie posadniki, 314-15, 348.

64. On Iakov Korob's activities in 1471, see GVNP, nos. 25-27, pp. 44-51; Ianin, Novgorodskieposadniki, 299, 304, 319. On his welcome to Ivan III, see Sof. II (PSRL 6), 200. On his participation in diplomatic missions, see Sof. II (PSRL 6), 204; Sim. (PSRL 18), 252. See also Ianin, Novgorodskie posadniki, 300, 318, 383; Ianin, Novgorodskie akty, 62; Bernadskii, Novgorod, 155, 283, 297, 358, 361.

65. Sof. II (PSRL 6), 214, 219; Bernadskii, Novgorod, 287, 303-4; Ianin, Novgorodskie posadniki, 302, 304. Iakov Korob was exiled to Moscow in 1481; A. A. Zimin and S. A. Levina, eds., Ioasafovskaia letopis’ (Moscow, 1957), 123; Nik. (PSRL 12), 231; see also Ianin, Novgorodskie posadniki, 325; Bernadskii, Novgorod, 320.

66. Sof. II (PSRL 6), 204-5; Bernadskii, Novgorod, 152; Ianin, Novgorodskie posadniki, 318.

67. Ivan Dmitr'ev's fate is unknown. He did, however, lose his landed property in the Novgorod region, as did all Novgorodian boyars, when Ivan III confiscated their estates. NPK, vol. 5, cols. 58-59; Samokvasov, D. la., Arkhivnyi material: Novoolkrylye dokumenty pomestno-votchinnykh uchrezhdenii Moskovskogo gosudarstva XV—XVII stoletii (Moscow, 1905), pt. l,p. 228.Google Scholar

68. V. N. Bernadskii concluded that Iakov Korob and his brother Kazimer, also a posadnik of Novgorod, were among those who favored Moscow in 1475-76; see his Novgorod, 297.

69. On the arrest and exile of Marfa Boretskaia and Vasilii Fedorov, see Sof. I (PSRL 6), 19;Mosk. (PSRL25), 322-23; Sof. II (PSRL6), 220; Vos. (PSRL8), 198-99; Nik. (PSRL 12), 188; Bernadskii, Novgorod, 318; Lur'e, Due istorii, 148-52.

70. These terms were introduced by the Form Critics, who analyzed narrative types implicit in the Old Testament and sought to relate their form to their setting in society (Sitz im Leberi); George A. Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times (Chapel Hill, 1980), 123-24.

71. Sof. I (PSRL6), 1.

72. Sof. I (PSRL6),2.

73. Sof. I (PSRL6), 11.

74. The claim that Feofil repeatedly attempted to retire to an unspecified monastery but was prevented by his supporters may be a topos; Sof. 1 (PSRL 6), 6. According to tradition, the elected bishop declines three times before accepting the post.

75. Sof. I (PSRL 6), 13.

76. Sof. II (PSRL 6), 191-92; the entry for 1471 in the Tipografskaia Chronicle gives a truncated version of essentially the same account; PSRL, vol. 24, Tipografskaia letopis’ (Petrograd, 1921), 188 (hereafter Tip.). Neither shows influence of the “Slovesa izbranna,“ despite claims to the contrary in Lur'e, Dve istorii, 20.

77. Vos. (PSRL 8), 204.

78. Akty istoricheskie, vol. 1, no. 378, p. 477.

79. On the archbishop's landed properties and economic activities, see A. S. Khoroshev, Tserkov’ vsotsial'no-politicheskoisistemeNovgorodskoifeodal'noirespubliki (Moscow, 1980), 121-39; Shapiro, ed., Agrarnaia istoriia, 274-75; Danilova, Ocherkipo istorii zemlevladeniia i khoziaistva, 146-61, 306-14. On ecclesiastical service personnel and the archbishop's role in Novgorod's economy, see Nikitskii, Ocherk, 48-50, 58, 64-71; B. D. Grekov, Novgorodskii domSviatoiSqfii, in hbrannyetrudy (Moscow, 1960), 4:277-83. On the expansivejudicialjurisdiction of the archbishop, see Ianin, V. A., Aktovye pechati drevnei Rusi X-XVw. (Moscow, 1970), 2:60 Google Scholar. On the archbishop's negotiating powers, see Khoroshev, Tserkov’ v sotsial'nopoliticheskoi sisteme, 49-51, 60-63; Nikitskii, Ocherk, 42-43.

80. Among the issues that provoked dispute between the Novgorodian clergy and the Moscow metropolitan were jurisdiction over ecclesiastical courts and fees collected for judicial services; Khoroshev, Tserkov’ v sotsial'no-politicheskoi sisteme, 78-83. Another divisive issue was responsibility for paying the travel and maintenance expenses incurred by the metropolitan when he visited Novgorod and by the archbishop when he was summoned to Moscow. These could be particularly onerous when visits were prolonged. When Archbishop Ioann was summoned to Moscow by Metropolitan Kiprian in 1401, for example, he was detained for three years, probably because he had blessed the Novgorodian troops engaged in recovering for St. Sophia the Dvina lands that had recognized Muscovite authority in 1397. See NPL, 391; Nikitskii, Ocherk, 111; Bernadskii, Novgorod, 230-31; Khoroshev, Tserkov’ v solsial'no-politicheskoi sisteme, 82-83; Fennell, A History of the Russian Church, 233-34.

81. Cf. the entry for 1392 in NIV (PSRL 4, 1st ed.), 99; F. Miklosich and J. Muller, eds., ActaPalriarchalus Constantinopolitani, Acta et Diplomata Graeca medii aevi sacra et profana, 2 vols. (Vienna, 1860-62), 2:178; Nikitskii, Ocherk, 113-14.

82. Nikitskii, Ocherk, 57.

83. An archbishop-elect who had not been invested could be retired. In 1423, for example, the archbishop-elect Feodosii was sent back to the Klopskii Monastery two years after his election; NPL, 413-14; Khoroshev, Tserkov’ v sotsial'no-politicheskoi sisteme, 85. The most recent exception was in 1434, when Archbishop-elect Evfimii went to Metropolitan Gerasim in Smolensk (not recognized by Moscow) for ordination; NPL, 417; on possible interpretations of Gerasim's action, see V. Vodov, “Gerasim—mitropolit Litovskii ili ‘vseia Rusi'? Obelom piatne vistorii Rusi XVveka,“in N. M. Botvinnikand E. I. Vaneeva, comps., In memoriam: Sbornik pamiati la. S. Lur'e (St. Petersburg, 1997), 236-38.

84. On the early Christian hermeneutic tradition, see Kennedy, Classical Rlieloric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition, 135-46. Topoi and metaphors were borrowed by medieval Rus’ writers from this tradition and applied to all persons viewed as enemies of Orthodoxy, among them evil women. For examples, see Gail Lenhoff, “Hellenistic Erotica and the Kiev Cave Patericon ‘Tale of Moses the Hungarian,'” in Charles J. Halperin, ed., Women in Medieval Russia, special issue of Russian History 10, no. 2 (1983): 147-52.

85. Sof. I (PSRL6),5.

86. In contrast to these spiritual terms used by the author of the “Slovesa izbranna“ to describe Marfa's address, the grand-princely chronicler criticizes the speeches made by her sons and their anti-Muscovite associates in political terms as “unseemly and pernicious“ (nelepaia i razvrashchennaia); VPL (PSRL 26), 231; Nikanor. (PSRL 27), 130; Sim. (PSRL 18), 225; Mosk. (PSRL 25), 284. While the parallel syntax, the association of Marfa with public defiance of the grand prince, and the portrayal of Feofil as loyal to Moscow could suggest that the grand-princely chronicler based his account of Marfa on the “Slovesa izbranna,“ the exact relationship of these texts requires further study. Arsenii Nasonov, the only scholar to comment on this issue directly, concludes that the texts belonged to separate traditions; see his Istoriia russkogo letopisaniia, 253-54.

87. Sof. I (PSRL 6), 6.

88. Among the scholars who have noted Marfa's comparison to evil women in passing are Bernadskii, Novgorod, 273; Lur'e, Dve istorii, 129; N. L. Pushkareva and E. Levina, “Zhenshchina v srednevekovom Novgorode XI-XV w.,” Veslnik Moskovskogo universiteta, series 8, Istoriia, 1983, no. 3:80, 88.

89. We are grateful to B. M. Kloss for his advice on practices of the metropolitan's scriptorium; on the importance of episcopal archives in preserving documents produced in the metropolitan's scriptorium, see Pliguzov, Andrei, “Predislovie,” in Pliguzov, A. I., Semenchenko, G. V., and Kuz'mina, L. F., eds., Russkii feodal'nyi arkhiv, 5 vols. (Moscow, 1986-1992), 1:6 Google Scholar.

90. After the Battle of Shelon', there is no record of Metropolitan Filipp's support for Archbishop Feofil. Filipp's successor, Metropolitan Gerontii, similarly displayed no support for Feofil when the archbishop was arrested in 1480 or for St. Sophia, when the election of Feofil's successor (Sergii, an elder of the Trinity Monastery) was moved from Novgorod to Moscow's Uspenskii Cathedral in 1483; Sim. (PSRL 18), 266; Mosk. (PSRL 25), 330; Pierre Gonneau, La Maison de la Sainle Trinite: Un grand monastere russe du Moyen-Age tardiff 1345-1533) (Paris, 1993), 198-99.

91. Sof. I (PSRL 6), 13.

92. See the charter (zhalovannaia gramota) issued to the Solovetskii Monastery by Archbishop Iona (1459-1470) in GVNP, no. 96, pp. 151-53; Ianin, “K khronologii,” 45. The vita of Aleksandr Oshevenskii (d. 1475), tonsured at Kirillov, describes how he went to Archbishop Iona with a group of Kirillov monks and received his blessing (for a fee), together with a charter (nastol'naia gramota) authorizing the foundation of a monastery on the River Churug, 45 versts from Kargopol'. Sawatii, a Kirillov monk, began construction of a monastery on the Solovki Islands with the archbishop's blessing in the second half of the fifteenth century; I. U. Budovnits, Monaslyri na Rusi i bor'ba s nimi kresl'ian v XP/-XV1 vv. (Moscow, 1966), 183-85, 192.

93. For example, the “Zastennyi” Monastery of St. George was renovated by Archbishop Evfimii in 1446; NtV (PSRL 4, lsted.), 123. The monk Dosifei claims to have asked the blessing of Archbishop Gennadii, who had been a student of St. Sawatii at Valaam, to write a vita of Saints Sawatii and Zosima of Solovki; S. V. Mineeva, ed., Zhitie i chudesa prepodobnykh Zosimy i Savvatiia solovetskikh chudotvortsev (Kurgan, 1995), 82-84; Budovnits, Monastyri, 192nl]9.

94. Budovnits, Monastyri, 190, 197.

95. For Zosima's vision, interpreted by the author of the vita as foretelling Marfa's fall, see Mineeva, ed., Zhitie, 45-49. The prophecy is cited in sixteenth-century metropolitan compilations, among them the Tolstovskii Vll copy (Golitsynskii) of the Nikon Chronicle, Nik. (PSRL 12), 137-38, and the Book of Degrees of the Royal Genealogy, completed between 1560 and 1563 in PSRL 21, pt. 2, p. 540.

96. Citing Marfa's contributions to the Solovetskii Monastery in GVNP, no. 219 (1459- 1470), p. 242 and no. 307 (1469-1470), p. 300, Budovnits suggests that this account misrepresents her relationship with the monks; Monastyri, 198nl36. Ianin argues, however, that no. 219 is a falsification and that no. 307 was probably written in 1471 after the Battle of Shelon'; “K. khronologii,” 45; Novgorodskie akty, 357-58; Novgorodskaia feodal'naia votchina, 50. We are indebted to Jennifer Baylee Spock for permission to read her dissertation; on Marfa Boretskaia, see “The Solovki Monastery 1460-1645: Piety and Patronage in the Early Modern Russian North,” 2 vols. (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1999), 1:54-57.

97. Sof. I (PSRL 6), 9.

98. Dosifei, the vita's author, admits being so dissatisfied with his own work that he persuaded the elder Spiridon-Sawa to rework the vita in 1503; Mineeva, ed., Zhitie, 83.

99. On rumors, see Presniakov, A. E., The Formation of the Great Russian State, trans. Moorhouse, A. E. (Chicago, 1970), 363-64.Google Scholar

100. We are grateful to Ann M. Kleimola for her comments on the political utility of shifting the blame for prominent men's crimes onto evil women. A parallel attempt by an editor of Tsarstvennaia kniga to portray Evfrosiniia Staritskaia as an evil woman (but without the patristic imagery) is traced in her unpublished paper “Spin and the Art of Myth Maintenance” delivered at the Fourth Annual UCLA Winter Workshop (Los Angeles, 16 April 1999).

101. The question of whether the writer of the “Slovesa izbranna” used the report on the events of 1470-71, believed to have been compiled at the grand prince's court in the early 1470s, or whether the influence was reversed requires further study.

102. Sof. I (PSRL6), 19; Sim. (PSRL 18), 266. The editors of Akty istoricheskie date the otrechennaia gramota to 1479: vol. 1, no. 378, p. 476. Editors A. I. Pliguzov, G. V. Semenchenko, and L. F. Kuz'mina date the text between 25 December 1482 and 25 March 1483; Russhiifeodal'nyi arkhiv, vol. 2, no. 77, pp. 252-53. This later dating reflects the Sophia Second Chronicle, which reports his forced resignation from his cathedra under the entry for the year 1483: Sof. II (PSRL 6), 235; see also Bazilevich, Vneshniaiapolitika russkogo tsentralizovannogo gosudarstva, 127; Khoroshev, Tserkov’ v sotsial'no-politicheskoi sisteme, 194. Feofil is said to have died in the Chudov Monastery after six and a half years of incarceration; Zimin and Levina, eds., loasafovskaia letopis', 119; Fennell, Ivan the Great, 55-57.

103. One cannot, however, rule out the possibility that the grand-princely chronicler's reference to the seditious speeches of Marfa's sons may have been inspired by their treatment in the “Slovesa izbranna.“

104. For comparable examples of Muscovite texts with several ideological layers, see Andreas Ebbinghaus, “Reception and Ideology in the Literature of Muscovite Rus',” in A. M. Kleimola and G. D. Lenhoff, eds., Moskovskaia Rus’ (1359-1584): Kul'tura i istoricheskoe samosoznanie / Culture and Identity in Muscovy, 1359-1584, UCLA Slavic Studies, n.s. 3 (Moscow, 1997), 83.